Francois-Rene Rideau reads much more into the discussion than was said. Except for 1) his incorrect inferences about my views about topics important to economics, 2) improperly paraphrasing what I wrote, and 3) the name calling, I agree with his points, and always have.
As for being part of a statist economy, I plead guilty, along with many other members of this list whose salaries come from government schools, private schools sustained by government funds, and government agencies. It may be presumptuous of me to speak on behalf of those of us who are part of the statist economy, but I suspect that we would rather be judged by what we write or do (more precisely, which future among achievable alternatives do we help to create), than on where we work. Perhaps an analogy might help. In 1993, a popular movie was made about Oskar Schindler, who was a member of the Nazi party and a profiteer during World War II. But this is not why the movie was made; rather, the movie was made because Schindler saved lives; i.e., he created a future that was much preferred over achievable alternatives. While none of us on this list face anything like that degree of risk, my guess is that, with few exceptions, those on this list have consciously risked careers and opportunities to help create a future more consistent with the themes of this list. Walt Warnick -----Original Message----- From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:fare@;tunes.org] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:28:04PM -0400, Warnick, Walt wrote: > Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded > by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. [...] I am amazed to find here such a blatant example of the "What is seen and what is not seen" fallacy. The point is not whether government did some good. By that measure, the russians being richer in 1991 than in 1917, we could say that communism was a wonderful experience (please replace by whichever phenomenon you love to hate, that lasted long enough - absolute monarchy? slavery? protectionism? belief in a flat earth? some or some other official religion?). The fallacy is that you don't choose between the past and the future. You choose between several futures. Comparing the state of science in 1950 to the state of science in 1980, and saying "hey, government did great!" is an utter fallacy. What you must compare is the state of science in 1980 under some assumptions to the state of science in 1980 under some other assumptions - and then find which assumption is more favorable. But even then, science is not the only thing to consider so as to judge - and you must consider other factors, too. When comparing benefits, you must compare the cost - and time itself is part of the cost; it is a resource that could have been used in different ways. Said other wise: only choices matter. The only costs are opportunity costs, and so are the only benefits. > Determining an optimal level of funding for basic research is a problem that > has not, so far, yielded to analytic solution. Rather, setting levels of > research is an entirely political process. In recent years, NIH has been > growing by leaps and bounds. You speak like a technocrat: your discourse is full of anerisms, and false solutions to false problems. The emptiness of your discourse is directly tied to your statist point of view (see the origins of the word "statistics", e.g. in the recent book "Damn Lies and Statistics"). Statist economy is an intellectual fraud, and I'm afraid you're part of it. I thought this mailing-list was precisely about showing how the praxeological "economist" point of view applies to all fields of human action. I suppose it also shows how statist economists may invade just any field of knowledge, so as to further their sick memes. [ Fran�ois-Ren� �VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". If it's necessary, then it cannot be evil, neither can it be good: it's a datum. -- Far�
